Federal Budgeting 101: Making Sense of the Government Shutdown

So why has the United States  federal government shutdown?

The simple answer is that the federal government cannot spend money unless it is appropriated and Congress and the president have not agreed on spending for approximately 25% of the federal government’s functions.  This means that for about one-quarter of the federal government there is no legal authority to spend money and therefore it must close down.

We seem to have a lot of federal government shutdowns in recent years, why?

The federal government process is broken and there is a political polarization over how to spend money.  This is the general answer.  But now, there is a fight between Donald Trump who insists on funding for his Mexican wall and Democrats who refuse to appropriate money for it.  However, to understand why so many shutdowns it is useful to understand something about the history of federal budgeting in the US.

Take us back in time before WW I, there was no federal budget.  If money was needed for something then the president asked for it and Congress simply allocated money for it.  Essentially, when money was needed Congress effectively wrote a check.  Such a process worked okay when the US government did not spend much money.  However, World War I pointed to the need to have a budget so that the government could spend more efficiently.

The 1921 Budget Act was the first effort to create a budget process for the US government.  It created congressional budget committees to centralize budgetary process, and it created the Bureau of the Budget (later the Office of Management and Budget) in the executive branch to bring some order to federal spending.

The Act helped but increased spending starting during the New Deal and then World War II, the Korean War, and then the Vietnam War led to a dramatic explosion of federal spending.    But something else happened while this spending increased, the philosophy and view about the role of the federal government changed.


What do you mean the philosophy and role of the Federal government changed?

There are two parts to this answer.

First, really prior to the New Deal the federal government had a limited role in the economy and in domestic politics.  Fighting wars and providing for the defense were generally accepted as federal government functions, but providing for the retirement benefits (Social Security), welfare, health care, or other social welfare issues were not considered to be federal functions until the 1930s.  The New Deal seemed to change that.  With a new philosophy about what the federal government should do, that meant more federal spending and therefore a need to have a budget to spend this money.

Second, , let’s think about what budgets are.  On one level budgets are simply tools to tell us the sources of federal revenue and how we wish to spend out money.  But budgets are more than that.

Political scientist V.O. Key once argued that budgeting is about the concept of opportunity costs–should we give money to A versus B?  His point was that budgeting is really about an issue of values.  How we spend money reflects normative choices.  Do we want to spend money on defense, health care, roads, or in the case of the current dispute, a wall along the Mexican border, or something else.  Budgetary politics is difficult because it is a fight over values.

But budgeting is also complex because of the multiple purposes attached to budgets.  Budgets are ways to spend money, but they are also tools for planning and measurement.  Budgets are also at the center of interest group politics and varying groups seek spending for their projects or interests.  Finally, for those of us schooled in economics, budgets and federal spending can be tools for economic development.  By that, there is a branch of macroeconomics tracing back to John Maynard Keynes in the 1930s who argued that federal spending can be used to stimulate the economy.  A discussion of Keynesian or social welfare economics is beyond the discussion here, but the point is that there are multiple purposes connected to federal spending.

So why is all this relevant to the present crisis?
By the time Nixon became president in 1969 a major dispute began to emerge, contesting how the federal government should spend money.  The Vietnam War and the Great Society programs of the Johnson presidency came together to create significantly larger federal spending and, with that, disputes over it.  Nixon refused to spend money allocated by Congress, and this led to the passage of the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act.

What did this Act do?
The 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act is the basis of modern US budgeting.  It created the Congressional Budget Office, , it created time dates for budget passage, it required a  presidential budget.  This law took effect in 1976.

In summary, the  President proposes a budget and Congress is supposed to pass it. Congress is supposed to pass an annual budget before October 1, every year.  (On a personal note, I was in college taking a macroeconomics class when this law passed and as required reading we had to read the very first budget of the president submitted to Congress under this law)

The Federal budget is composed of 12 appropriation bills, and different committees in Congress are assigned the task to adopt them, with final votes required of both Houses of Congress and a signature by the president.

If budget not passed, either there is a government shutdown or Congress and president can agree to a continuing resolution to keep government funded.  A continuing resolution simply is a temporary funding mechanism agreed to by Congress and the president to keep the government funded until  they can reach agreement on a budget or another continuing resolution.

However, the government has never really shutdown completely.  By that, approximately 75-80% of the federal budget is composed of legal entitlements or longer term contractual agreements that mandate spending.  Thus, for what is often called mandatory spending the government cannot shutdown because there is legal authority to spend money.  This is the case with Social Security–there is ongoing legal authority to spend for this and therefore grandma should never have to worry that she will not get her check.  The same is true now.

The current fight now is over that 20-25% of the budget which is referred to as discretionary spending.  This is money that Congress and the president have to authorize every year.

How well has the 1974 law worked?
Not well.   A good budget process only works if there is a consensus on values and spending.  But since 1976 the two parties have become more polarized, leading to more and more disagreements over taxing and spending priorities. 

Since 1976, only four budgets passed on time (the last time 1997).

Most of time operating on continuing resolutions.

Since 1976,  there have been 20 budget or funding gaps, some have resulted in government shutdowns, other unnoticed.

Under Reagan three one day funding gaps not noticed.

Under George H.W. Bush a 1990 weekend shutdown.

Under Clinton two shutdowns.  In 1995   for 5 days over budget disputes, and in 1996   for 21 days over budget disputes.

Under Obama there was one shutdown in 2013 that last for 15 days over a fight over the Affordable Care Act.

Under Trump there were two prior shutdowns to this one.  In 2018for two days in January and an overnight funding gap in February.

Are there costs associated with a shutdown?
Yes.  There are costs with the government closing down, laying off people, and then rehiring and starting up again.  In 2013 the shutdown cost the economy and GDP more than $24 billion and it affected the US bond rating.  The current shutdown is affecting confidence on Wall Street, the stock market, and leading to additional economic problems.  Forecasters were already predicting an economic slowdown in later 2019 and 2020 and this shutdown could hasten or worsen the problem.  Simply put, everyone pays for the shutdown.

What do we know about the current shutdown and dispute?
The current dispute is over spending for Trump’s Mexican wall.  Remember, when he ran for president he said he was going to build a wall and Mexico was going to pay for it.  Now he wants taxpayers to pay for it.  Trump has made funding for the wall a non-negotiable item.  Congress, including Democrats, have offered enhanced border security but in a Twitter message on Sunday Trump rejected that compromise. 

In many ways, Trump understands that this may be his last chance to get funding for the wall.  With Democrats taking over the House in January there will be even less of a chance to get this funding  Trump has made the border wall a campaign promise and wants it to appease his base, Democrats oppose it in part to appease their base, but also because less than a majority of Americans support it. 

How long with the partial shutdown last?
It will go until late this week but I could see the current Congress simply passing this problem down the line to the next Congress (and Democrats in the House) to solve.  For the outgoing Republican majority, they have nothing to lose by not resolving the partial shutdown and they can then pass the problem on to the Democrats.  The recipe here is for a long partial shutdown.

Who are the winners and losers?
Federal employees and taxpayers are the clear losers.  Generally the party who is tagged with the responsibility for the shutdown pays politically which is why the blame game now.  Republicans in the House can escape responsibility since they are no longer in the majority in a week.  Trump at one time claimed ownership of the shutdown but now he is trying to blame Democrats, especially in the Senate.   If it lasts till next year, he will blame House Democrats.  In some ways, if Trump does not get the wall he gets to use it as an issue in 2020, but if he does get funding then he loses it as an issue.

Final question, assume the money is appropriated, is the wall feasible?
No.  From an engineering perspective it is impossible to build along rivers and lakes, and it poses environmental problems.  In addition, even in the places where the wall already exists, people dig under it or find ways around it.  The wall will have little impact on immigration.

Unhinged: The Predictable and Overdue Collapse of the Trump Presidency

Aren’t we where many of us always thought it would be when it came to the Trump presidency?
Not quite half way through his presidency it is at a point where it is unhinged, demonstrating clear incompetence, unethical, if not illegal with Trump himself, trailing all the way down through his administration and all that he touches.  The government is partially shutdown, the stock market is tanking, law suits are mounting and grinding Trump to a halt, and Republicans in Congress are at war with him.  All entirely predictable, the only question is why it took so long.
For all those who wrung their hands with worry after the 2016 elections your greatest fears were realized and not.  On the one hand the fear was that Trump would pursue an anti-Obama agenda, seeking to reverse all that he did and more.  Trump is doing that, but also to those who feared there would be no checks on him, the fears were overblown.  Contrary to what many thought, it was not only Trump’s basic incompetence and perhaps crookedness that is bringing him down, but the irony of it all is that the system is working.  Courts, even those increasingly packed with Trump appointees, are coming to bear as they limit many of his government decisions.  The Mueller investigation, along with parallel ones by the New York Attorney General and New York federal prosecutor are closing in on the president and his inner circle of business and political associates.  Political appointees are fleeing as they face corruption charges.  The political process has motivated voters to elect Democrats.  The worst of Trump has been checked, and it will become more exacting come January as Congress changes power.
But what has happened since election day is that the Trump presidency has become fully unhinged.    What held this presidency together was a soaring economy but the tariffs are driving the economy down.  The tax  cuts gave an adrenaline rush that was short term and fizzled out, and the mounting debt and overall bad stewardship of the economy are pushing the US into a likely slowdown in2020.  Trump’s twitter presidency whose agenda is driven by what he sees on “Fox and Friends” has reduced his support to the base of his base, alienating him from all but a few extreme conservatives and angry  white guys who seem to resonate to fears of immigrants and the need for a wall.
Trump’s America First or Make America Great Again is simply a self-defeating  pitiful parody of itself.    The tariff wars show no sign of helping the US economy.  Gutting Obamacare lays bare the emptiness of Trump’s and GOP promises to fix health care, especially for those who voted for them. Whatever the wisdom of initially sending troops into Afghanistan and Syria, pulling them out now does little to make America more safe.  The move empowers Iran and terrorists, destabilizing the Middle East even more than now.   Trump’s foreign policy team is in shambles, and in the last few days Mattis resigns in protest, Wall street collapses, the government shuts down.
Yet Trump’s base of his base sticks with him, and will throughout the shutdown and presidency.  Trump is in a no lose position when it comes to the wall, the shutdown, and his base.  If he gets the wall he claims a win.  If he does not get the wall he gets to blame it on the Democrats and use the issue for another day.  The longer the shutdown, the stronger his argument is with his base.  It is entirely possible the Democrats get outplayed on this issue–no deal with this Congress and Trump blames it on the Senate Democrats.  No deal in January blame it on the House Democrats.  Never mind the issue does not work with the majority of voters, Trump’s end game is to look good on Fox and Friends, not govern responsibility. 

The Case for Decriminalizing Marijuana in Minnesota–The Right and Wrong Reasons for It and What it Means to Do So

Is it time to legalize the recreational use of marijuana in Minnesota?  The answer may be yes, but when and how it is done in Minnesota is a critical issue.

Two parties in the November 2018 elections received  major party status on the promise of legalizing marijuana.  Governor-elect Tim Walz is apparently supportive of the same along with several legislators.  State Fair and other polls in Minnesota too support legalization of its recreational use, paralleling national polls placing more than 60% of the American public favor this.  The time seems right to act.

In many ways, the time is more than ripe.  Twenty-five years ago I was among the first to argue for decriminalization of drug use.  In “Rethinking Drug Criminalization Policies,” 25 Texas Tech Law Review 151 (1993), I argued that the then three decade long war on drugs had  failed miserably and that it was time to shift away from a drug policy that criminalizes its use to one which treats it as a public health problem. That thesis was true then, and even more so now.  My argument then addressed not simply marijuana but all forms of illegal drugs because while there is no evidence that the use of marijuana poses a public health problem, other drugs do.  Not a problem then, or at least not apparent, were the health dangers arising from opioid use which is now an epidemic, posing a far greater problem than the recreational use of marijuana.  Add up the costs of police enforcement, court time, and other expenses, one can argue that Minnesota would save significant resources in legalizing recreational marijuana.  In addition, as I pointed out earlier this year in a Huffington Post article, the criminalization of its use has failed.  Its prohibition has not worked and it has produced  racial disparities with lasting effects on society, including Minnesota. 

Marijuana use is effectively already being decriminalized in Minnesota.  Over time more and more conditions are being allowed under the medical marijuana law, including most recently Alzheimer’s Disease.   That law has accommodated Minnesota’s gradually to it use, but of course there is also a generational shift going on that does not shun its use.  One can make a libertarian argument for its recreational use that parallels John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty arguments that it is not the business of society what one does so long as it does not affect others.  However, the stronger arguments to make are that legalizing its use is consistent with the “One Minnesota” Walz promise to address disparities that divide the state.  Criminalizing recreational marijuana use is supported by a majority of the state and its enforcement has racially arbitrary impacts.  Additionally, legalizing it saves money, allowing the state to concentrate its resources are more pressing drug-related issues such as the opioid crisis, domestic and sexual abuse associated with alcohol use, and the growing  problem of e-cigarettes.  Decriminalization should be sold along these lines, suggesting legalization  allows for the state to address more pressing problems.

Finally, many will argue that a legalize strategy will help Minnesota in two other ways.  First,  a “legalize, regulate,  and tax” policy will bring in new revenue to the state.  Yes this is the case, but one should be wary about projections of such revenue which are often oversold.  Second, the state should not get too dependent on one revenue stream such as this–lotteries point to this.  Third, as seen in the case of Colorado, legalize, regulate, and tax poses administrative complications for the state that need to be addressed.  Marijuana is still illegal under federal law and one cannot use banks.  Marijuana sales are a cash economy for now and good planning is essential to making it work.  Finally, along this lines, moving from medical to recreational use of marijuana will have an impact on the former businesses, and one must think about that.

A second claim for legalization is its impact on the Minnesota economy.  It may well help in many ways, ranging from agriculture to retail businesses.  But again, one needs to think in terms of how these new businesses fit in with existing ones in the state. This gets at what is meant by decriminalization or legalization.  Is legalization simply about personal use or does it mean commercial sanction?  This is a policy question not clear now.

Finally, despite popular support for decriminalization, will this be an easy bill to pass this session?  Do Democrats and Walz want to define their political agenda as starting with marijuana  or do they want to start with the budget, the bonding bill, federal tax conformity, or infrastructure?  Legalization is a popular issue with urban liberals, but it is a top priority with suburban female voters who put the DFL in charge?  What are the priorities, will the fight over marijuana be contentious, and what message will be sent by making it a priority in 2019?  These are all good questions that need to be examined.

Overall, the time to legalize is past due, but how it is done and exactly when, and how it is sold, are the real questions that remain.

Partisanship and Petty Politics in Wisconsin

The power grab by Wisconsin Republicans to limit the incoming authority of the Democratic
Attorney General and Governor is about pettiness and being a sore loser.  But it is not the only instance of such pettiness–Michigan too is experiencing this, as did North Carolina a few years ago when the Democratic governor ousted the Republican.   Pettiness seems to be de rigueur, inspired by Donald Trump’s brand of politics, violating two norms, one informal, the other constitutional.
Pettiness and being a sore loser is not a unique feature of contemporary American politics–it tradition goes back perhaps as early as 1800.  Then, when Thomas Jefferson and his fellow Democrats took control of the White House and Congress and ousted John Adams and the Federalists, the latter retaliated with a series of late minute acts that included judgeships to stack the  courts.  This resulted in the appointment by John Adams of a judicial commission to William Marbury, who, while confirmed by the Senate, did not have his judgeship delivered in term and which Thomas Jefferson refused to honor.  The dispute resulted in the arguably the most important and famous Supreme Court case in American history–Marbury v. Madison–which established the principles of judicial review, constitutional supremacy, and separation of powers as fundamental values in American law and politics.
The incidents surrounding Marbury are twofold important.  First, the 1800 elections were arguably the most significant in American history, establishing a pattern of peaceful transition of government power from one party to another.  A hallmark of democracy is the acknowledgment by one party that it has lost and its willingness to give up the reigns of power peacefully to the opposition.  Yes, in 1800 the Federalists were sore losers, but power transferred without gun shots and the election established the unwritten norm of how parties ought to observe one another–not as enemies or criminals to be locked up–but as rivals with whom you disagree but nonetheless will not seek to illegitimately undermine.
Throughout American history losers may grumble that they have lost an election but they have not generally sought to change the rules of the game to undermine the incoming winners.  Moreover, they have generally not   sought to entrench themselves in power, either directly by trying to undermine the election results directly or indirectly. Unfortunately that has changed.  Mitch McConnell’s announcement after Obama’s victory in 2008 to do everything he could to oppose him is an example of what Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson describe in their Winner-Take-All-Politics.  Politics has become a zero sum game–I win or you win’‘and not how to figure out how to create a “win-win” game that is the product of compromise.  Winner-take-all-politics is a product of the intense polarization and partisanship that has emerged in American politics, personified most perfectly in Donald Trump’s intense tribalism of divide and conquer politics, best captured in the “Lock her up” mantra against Hillary Clinton.  Largely Trump’s strategy was rejected in 2018, but many who thrived on it, as in Wisconsin, are unable to accept losing, view the opposition as evil.
Such manicheism is not confined to Republicans.  There are many Democrats similarly who view Republicans and Trump as mortal enemies.  Many see themselves as part of a resistance, almost romantically comparing themselves to freedom fighters in France during WW II taking on the Nazis.  Yes, the special prosecutor may find laws broken and persons worthy to be indicted, but one might take a page from Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural speech asking for “ malice toward none; with charity for all.”
But if Wisconsin represents a breaking of the unwritten tradition of respecting election results and seeking reconciliation that the incidents surrounding the 1800 taught, it also violates another–the concepts of constitutionalism and separation of powers.  What the Wisconsin legislature is doing  arguably violates that state’s constitution.
The concept of separation of powers is located with the three vesting clauses of the Wisconsin Constitution, specifically  Art. 4, § 1; Art. 5, § 1; Art. 7, § 2.     When it comes to the power of the governor, the state Constitution declares that “The executive power shall be vested in a governor.”  Art. 5, § 1 (Layton School of Art & Design v. WERC, 82 Wis.2d 324, 347, 262 N.W.2d 218, 229 (1978); State v. Washington, 83 Wis.2d 808, 816, 266 N.W.2d 597, 601 (1978)). According to the Wisconsin Supreme Court: “No branch of our government is subordinate to the others, no branch is to seize control over the others except as provided by the constitution and no branch may exercise power committed by the constitution to another” (State v. Holmes, 106 Wis.2d 31, 42, 315 N.W.2d 703, 709 (1982)).
  The test to determine whether a violation of separation of powers has occurred is whether actions by one branch result in the usurpation of powers of another branch (J.F. Ahern Co. v. Building Comm'n, 114 Wis.2d 69, 104, 336 N.W.2d 679, 695 (Ct.App.1983)).  A departure from a strict separation of powers is permitted so long  as the zone of shared powers of  one branch does not unduly burden or substantially interfere with another branch (In re E.B., 111 Wis.2d 175, 184, 330 N.W.2d 584, 589 (1983)).
Given this language by the Wisconsin courts, the question seems to be a matter of degree–how far can one branch go before it encroaches on the core functions of another branch?  Arguably, the Wisconsin legislature appears to be at this point with it efforts to limit the governor.  The question is what are the core executive functions vested in the governor and has the legislature  unduly burdened them?  Arguably, preventing the governor from withdrawing from law suits or changing other policies directly limit core functions, questioning the constitutionality of this move.
But what about the attorney general?  Article 5, § 3 declare the,” duties and compensation of the treasurer and attorney general shall be prescribed by law.”  This constitutional provision appears to give the legislature more authority to act to augment the attorney general’s authority than that of the governor.
So what are the remedies?  A federal law suit will not work because this is a matter of state and not federal constitutional law and the federal courts will generally not render a decision on state constitutions and what they mean.  Thus, the suit must be in state court. However, according to a Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision State v. City of Oak Creek, 223 Wis. 2d 219, 588 N.W.2d 380 (Ct. App. 1998), the attorney general does not have authority to challenge the constitutionality of statutes.  This decision would appear to foreclose a lawsuit, however there are reasons to think this decision is wrong and could be reversed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.  But even if correct, the governor could hire a private attorney to bring suit, but given the current partisan line up on the Wisconsin Supreme Court,  Evers may not win were the issue to likely go there for resolution.  The legal option may be foreclosed, at least in the short term.
Instead, Evers and the Democrats option may be legislative next year, threatening to veto provisions that Republicans want if they do not change the law.  Additionally, while unsuccessful  in the past, threats of recall are possible, and, of course, with 2020 and then redistricting after that, the Democrats may have to rely on the electoral solutions to address the petty turn of sore losers in Wisconsin.

Reflections on the Future Survival of the Donald Trump Presidency

The Trump presidency has always been a rocky and contentious one, but recent and coming events will try its soul in ways that have not previously been seen.  While repeatedly some speculate that Trump will not make it to the end of his term in 2021, realistically it would take a lot to change for him to be impeached, convicted of a crime, or resign.  What forces and events will impact his presidency in the coming months?

Trump Himself

The Death of President George Herbert Walker Bush points to a significant contrast in personalities and the weakness of Donald Trump as a person.  Bush’s death provides not just a retrospective on the 41st president’s legacy, but it speaks also to the deficiencies of the Trump presidency. 

Bush’s presidency illustrates many legacies–some good  and bad–but psychological temperament and style stand out.  Bush’s career in business and government–especially the latter as CIA director, UN ambassador, member of Congress, and vice-president before becoming president–point to someone with the skills, knowledge, and experience to lead the country.  Bush’s resume was one of understanding how Washington worked. It was also a resume that demonstrated a commitment to diplomacy, knowledge-based decision making, and  a respect for the processes of government.

Bush appointed knowledgeable and competent people to serve him, he approached the world, as in the case of the first Gulf War, with a sense of multilateralism and diplomacy that starkly contrast to what Trump displays.  Additionally, Bush, unlike Trump, was willing to accept responsibility for his actions and he made choices–such as correctly breaking his no new taxes pledge–that demonstrated real leadership and a willingness to compromise.

Whether many realize it or not, the passing of Bush will only highlight so much more the deficiencies of Trump and his presidency. 

Michael Cohen and the Looming Special Prosecutor Report

Perhaps the most significant event affecting the Trump presidency took place last week when Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen pled guilty to lying to Congress.  It was not so much the lying that was the issue, but it was what the lie was about–efforts well into June 2016 to pursue a business deal with Russia.  Why is this significant?

Central to the special prosecutor’s investigation on Russian interference with the 2016 US elections and the role that the Trump campaign had in colluding with them has been ascertaining of motive.  By that, the issue has been to try to explain why Trump and his associates may have wanted to collude with them, or why they seemed even now unwilling to take a hardline with Putin or otherwise condemn the investigation.  The simple answer is that Trump had possible economic ties then and perhaps now with Russia that he did not want to reveal and which may have then and now continue to cloud his judgments as president.

Keep in mind that Trump this week did confirm much of the details of Cohen’s confession about a Russian Trump tower deal.  This fact no longer seems in dispute.  The deal now speaks to how the Trump business empire, his campaign, and now presidency are intertwined, and how there may have been interest or motive to collude with Russians to get a better economic deal for Trump.  There is a possible quid pro quo emerging.  The Russians did not want Clinton elected, Trump wanted a business deal and perhaps a presidency, the art of the deal suggests strike a deal so that everyone gets what they want.  This quid pro quo is perhaps the core of everything which has thus far unfolded, and it goes far beyond accusations that Secretary of State Clinton extended special deals to countries and those who were donors to the Clinton Foundation.

Democratic Control of the House

Democrats taking control of the US House is significant on multiple fronts.  They will pose a policy limit on Trump, they will also be able to do many investigations and perform the oversight of the executive branch and agencies that the Republican House never was willing to do.  But House control by Democrats also closely connects to the special prosecutor’s actions.

One must also read between the lines in the Cohen plea.  It is no surprise that special prosecutor Robert Mueller knows more than the media is reporting.  One can surmise that once the Democrats take control of the House in January Mueller will be able to release a report to them, even if he is fired.  There is little chance that Mueller will indict Trump even if the evidence supports it. Instead, he will follow the March 1, 1974 Justice Department Memorandum which then referred allegations of Nixon’s criminality to the House.  The same will possibly happen here.

One can probably expect the special prosecutor to indict more individuals, especially given Cohen’s plea.  One might also see Trump pardoning many individuals such as Paul Manafort who remain  loyal to him.  But even if all this occurs, the one-two punch of a special prosecutor’s report and Democratic House control will constrain the Trump presidency even more than it has already.

Mounting Personal Lawsuits

Trump faces numerous civil lawsuits in state and federal court that will continue to dog him, and they cannot be halted by presidential pardons or judicial appointments.  These suits involve sexual harassment issues, the Trump Foundation, his business dealings and how they tie into whether he violated the Constitution’s Emolument clause, among others.  President’s cannot issue self-pardons, especially in civil matters, and his authority does not extend to state courts where he cannot control appointments to the federal bench or the Supreme Court.

 
2020 Economic Slowdown

Perhaps the biggest wild card is the economy.  The US is in the middle of one of the longest recoveries and bull markets in history.  But there are many signs that the end is coming.
Internationally, there is a slowing down of world economic growth that will affect US exports.  Also, as a globally interconnected economy, the US will be impacted by what happens elsewhere.  Rising interest rates are impacting an already slowing down housing market that seemed until recently to be overheated. 

The Trump tax cuts, according to analysts, either had little impact on economic growth–especially when most of the tax cuts were taken as profits and not reinvestments–or they have run their course.  The trade wars are beginning to impact many US sectors, including agriculture and the auto industry (as seen by GM’s plans to close facilities), and  the tightening of immigration is leading to labor shortages.

Finally, the Trump administration has failed to address longer term structural problems with the US economy such as the significant racial and economic gaps tht limit opportunities for many, unequal economic development, decaying infrastructure, and an inability to deal with global economic issues such as the increasing competitiveness of China and other major economies. Throw into this also a  growing budget deficit that will force the US to borrow more money at higher interest rates. All told, the recent Wall Street stock jitters highlight what many see as a first or second 2020 economic slowdown that  will impact the presidential race.

But Will the Republicans Abandon Trump?

All of the above forces will serve as manor checks on the remaining Trump presidency.  But does that mean that Republicans in the Senate or his base will abandon him?  As of now there is little sign of that.   It would take a significant combination of the above events for that to happen and for there to be a serious chance of Republicans calling for impeachment, or for there to be support for challenges to Trump were he to run for a second term.  Trump remains more popular among his base than do the rest of the Republicans and until such time as his base leaves him one cannot foresee  this scenario.